Scholar to address biblical references to homosexuality

Houston Chronicle ^ | 12-4-04 | Tara Dooley

[Houmatt]

Documentary fans may know L. Michael White as co-writer of the 1998 Frontlineprogram From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians. As a scholar of the Bible and early Christianity, White has been asked to decipher what the Bible says about homosexuality, a divisive issue in some churches today. White, who will lecture in Houston next week on the topic, spoke with religion writer Tara Dooley about the "H-word," as he calls it, and the Bible. Here are excerpts from that interview:

Q: Well, what does the Bible say about homosexuality?

A: The modern category of homosexuality is not something that maps so neatly onto the ancient world. Although there are various concerns or discussions within the Bible — both the Hebrew Scriptures and in the New Testament — about all kinds of sexuality issues, what we think of as homosexuality isn't really something they talk about directly. Now there are certainly sex practices that are condoned or condemned in the Bible. So, in a sense, what I'm going to try to talk about is, in a more precise way, from a historical perspective, what those few passages in the Bible are really talking about in each case.

[Jorge]

Fornication is definately wrong, as in flee fornication, but homosexuality is called an abomination.

Actually if you do a Bible search on you will find that heterosexual sin is also called an abomination.

And one hath committed abomination with his neighbour's wife; and another hath lewdly defiled his daughter in law; and another in thee hath humbled his sister, his father's daughter. Ezekiel 22:10-12)

But I do agree that homosexuality definitely is set apart as more perverse. And in fact is ALWAYS sin, when in fact heterosexuality is God's design for sexuality.

[jwalsh07]

Thankfully my mother is nothing like you judgemental people.

You're a clown. You just spent the entire day "judging" those you disagree with to be bigots, haters, Luddites and shaman worshippers. Try to stay consistent. You're welcome to your judgements just like the rest of us but don't pretend to be the Prince of Nonjudgementalism while you're at it.

[Jorge]

You are comparing an act perpetrated by two consenting adults in privacy, to rape and pedophilia? Haha!

Haha! Nowhere does God say sin is OK in His eyes as long as it is engaged in by consenting adults.
Very weak argument.

[Alacarte]

All those regimes are no longer in power... there are always negative mutations, the question is whether they survive.

Nazi germany was staunchly christian through WWII. Being non-religious is NOT the same as being humanistic. What makes you think atheism = humanism? Atheism is a negative, lack of religion, not a positive. When we are born we are all atheists, religion is a social construct. Atheism is not a religion, it is the default position.

The source of morality? I'll post it for you again:

Alacarte - All these universal values are social values, and they are easy to trace. We can simply look at any social animal to see the similarities. Their social structures are less advanced than ours, but they are obviously similar. Simians are the best example. If an individual in a group of chimps murders or beats others he is cast out, or killed, since he is not helping the group. If they are cast out, they are far less likely to survive on their own, so it is in their best interests to be a useful part of the group. Same way with humans, paleolithic man had basic social rules, namely, be useful, don't be a burden, or you get cast out. These are the basis for all our social values today. Murder, theft, rape, all get you punished, because they hurt the 'whole,' not because they go against divine providence.

Exactly the reason dogs fit so well into our lives compared to cats. Dogs come from a social hierarchy just like we do. They are genetically programmed to seek their place in the 'pack,' our family. Which is why they feel guilty when we discipline them, they feel the need to belong. Compare this to cats, solitary animals, who have little interest in being useful.

To summarize, these common morals are entirely social, which is why all cultures developed them independently. Granted, if you don't know natural science, or deny *sigh* evolution, this is an obvious problem.

Your definition of 'humanist' is flat out wrong. Humanism is the concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans. Do the death camps in cambodia seem like something in the interest of a humanist?

Raping babies? That would never be acceptable in a humanistic society, where are you getting all this from?

[Paperdoll]

PING

[WKUHilltopper]

Jeepers, RaceBannon. The scriptures really don't reference anything about homosexuality. This "scholar" really knows what he's talking about! /sarasm

[Jorge]

Leviticus 20 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Gays deserve death. You agree? Or maybe you deny the absolute truth of the bible?

You don't know the Bible.
The Bible ALSO says adulters deserve death in the Old Testament. (along with a host of other sins)

But in the New Testament Jesus said to let "he who is without sin cast the first stone".

So please don't pretend that in order to believe the Bible we must agree that gays should be killed.

[nightdriver]

"I don't see what you mean..."

It's evidence of a creation of human being that predate Adam. No need to invent the phenomenon of evolution to explain ancient life forms.

The prophet has to be looking at the "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. It dosen't fit anywhere else.

[jwalsh07]

All of that claptrap and no answer to the question. Lets try again.

Is it absoltuely wrong to rape babies? If so then there are absolute truths that do not evolve from humanism and you have a big problem with your philosophy.

As for the "mutations" I can only laugh and your claim of Christianhood for Nazis is absurd. How about the Baathists? Another mutation?

What those states all had in common was that rights flowed from the state. In Americas founding philosophy rights flow from God. By default humanists are relegated to rights flowing from states or from whatever humanists decide rights are.

Peter Singer claims to be a humanist and advocates for killing babies who are mentally retraded. Is that something a humanist of your sort can get behind?

[Paperdoll]

>When homosexuals say that a toleerant, live and let live attitude isn't enough and insist that people must not only tolerate their behavior, but ALSO agree with that it is right and good, what would you call them?<

Dreamers. The lion is roaring in the streets.

[jwalsh07]

The nuance between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is not something Alacarte is interested in.

[Dust in the Wind]

I guess the highlighted here is what I was referencing more than any. . .

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

[jwalsh07]

Raping babies? That would never be acceptable in a humanistic society, where are you getting all this from?

Why not?

You have said that there are no absolute truths. If there are no absolutes why then could the humanists not suffer a "mutation", read a little Kinsey vis a vis the sexual being in children and conclude that far be it from them to deny children their sexual selves.

[Jorge]

Alacarte - I used to believe there was a god. I would pray and pray, I would talk to him, but I never felt him, no matter how much I believed. Then one day it struck me, why he never talks to me... Once I considered the possibility he does not exist, suddenly all my questions were answered. Now I know we are alone.

You have to "feel" God to believe He exists?

We don't need faith to believe in things we can feel.

And how do you know God never talks to you?
The Bible is God's Word to mankind. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean God isn't speaking to you through it.

God also speaks to us through his people. Don't say God never talks to you.

[Alacarte]

"You assume so? Why? And how would you know when it happens? And if you don't have an answer, have you at least tried to figure one out? Or did you never think of it"

I didn't want to answer this because it needs qualifying. How does a culture evolve in a way it 'ought not to?' Nazi germany was a one example, but it's fascism was such a short time, much like a negative mutation. The world rebelled and overcame it. Other times, like when the west adopted the roman catholic church was a bad evolution. It created a powerful empire, but it also allowed the church to dictate morality, which caused the dark ages for 1000 years.

""Subservient" how? To whom? In which contexts and in what manner?"

Subservient to men. The bible is one of the most chauvanistic books ever written. Is this really a point of contention?

---

So you have a daughter. She used to be cute and affectionate, but the older she gets, the more rebellious and disobedient she becomes. Displeased? Of course you are, every father would be! But what to do... hmm, how about selling her into slavery? Sure, not only do you get rid of the ungrateful cow from your home, but you make a few bucks at the same time! A win-win solution! Read all about it in Exodus 21:7-10.
Soldiers of a conquering army have their pick of the women in any captured city. If a soldier "seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her," that soldier can force her to marry him. Whether she wants to or not doesn't really come into the equation. The catch is that once you marry her, you can't sell her to someone else, you have to either keep her as your wife or let her go. Read all about it in Deuteronomy 21:10-14. Hey, this would make a great recruiting poster for the army - "travel to foreign lands, blow stuff up, and force beautiful women to marry you!" And it's all ordained by god, what could be better?
Of course, army life isn't for everyone. There's lots of marching, fighting, and of course, the possibility of dying in battle. So what do you do if you don't want to join the army but you do want to force a beautiful woman to marry you? Well, according to Deuteronomy 22:28-29, all you have to do is rape her, then pay her father fifty pieces of silver. Done and done, she's yours forever! What do you mean, a woman probably wouldn't want to marry her rapist, what's that got to do with it, god says she has to, so she has to! Just be careful not to rape a married woman, as that will earn you death by stoning, as outlined in Deuteronomy 22:23-27.
All good christians know that women are only good for one thing, right? That's what god says! According to 1 Timothy 2:15, "... women will be saved through childbearing". So, I guess any woman who thinks for herself and decides not to get pregnant won't be saved, huh?
God hates flirtatious women who wear flashy jewelry and clothing. Women are supposed to be subservient, not sexually aggressive! Isaiah 3:16-26 teaches us what happens to women who flirt. The lord will strip them naked, make them bald, cause them to smell really awful, and make them ugly. Yeah, that'll teach them, way to go, god. 1 Timothy 2:9 backs this up.
If there's anything god hates more than flirtatious women, it's sexually active women. You see, only men are allowed to go screwing around as they see fit, women simply can't do that. Ezekiel 23:19-27 tells the story of one such woman, Oholibah, who was promiscuous with men from a very young age. Eventually, god got fed up and decided to punish her. First he arranged to have her gang raped, then he had her nose and ears cut off, her children sold into slavery, and all her possessions taken away and burned. Yeah, that'll teach her for giving in to those sexual urges you gave her, god, way to go! Leviticus 21:9 puts it a little more succinctly: whores should be burned to death.
If there is one single bible passage that proves that god is really a drunk redneck, it has to be 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Women are not allowed even to speak when in church. If they hear something they don't understand, they have to keep their yaps shut, wait until they get home, and then ask their husband to explain it to them.
Another great example along the lines of the above is presented in 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Women are not allowed to teach, nor have any authority over man. Why? Because Adam was created first (making Eve, and by extension all women, secondary), and also because Eve was deceived by the snake (therefore meaning that all women, naturally, are easily deceived).
Yes, god knows how important it is for a woman to obey her man. Ephesians 5:22-24 tells us that a wife must obey her husband the same way she would obey god himself. 1 Corinthians 11:3 reinforces this, and Colossians 3:18 says it yet again.
Are men and women equal? Not according to god! He's even kind enough to provide us with dollar values when comparing the worth of a man to the worth of a woman. Check it out: Leviticus 27:1-7.
God forces women to endure pain during childbirth, and also tells woman that man "...shall rule over thee". Glad I wasn't born a christian woman. Genesis 3:16
And finally, the passage that nicely sums up how god views women: Ecclesiastes 7:26.

---

cut-n-paste

"And it would be easy to say they don't. Your point?"

Argh, the bible is very specific that women do what they are told. This is not compatible with democracy.

"By which standard do you define civility and barbarity?"

I define them by humanistsic standards (real humanism, not your version). By biblical standards, the inquisitiuon was civil, so whether you agree with mine or not, the biblical standard is barbaric.

"How would you recognize it if we needed to take away women's suffrage, and what does "need" mean in this context?"

What? Why would we need to take away women's suffrage? Suffrage means the rigth to vote. Whast does this have to do with anything? If and when we develop a better system of government, perhaps suffrage will disappear, but never selectively for one gender. Things like gender/racial equality are irreversible.

[jwalsh07]

From the Humanist Manifesto:

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

Now ain't that rich. You guys have nothing on Stalin. No wonder you're opposed to Christianity which places the highest status on the individual, not the state.

[Jorge]

The nuance between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is not something Alacarte is interested in.

Then he shouldn't attempt to use the Bible to support his arguments.

[jwalsh07]

Yeah, I'd agree with that Jorge.

[Alacarte]

"Haha! Nowhere does God say sin is OK in His eyes as long as it is engaged in by consenting adults.
Very weak argument."

Who cares what the bible says? Acts between consenting adults are ok, pedophilia involves a minor, which makes it wrong.